Somewhat Accepted:

• Hegarty p. 170: “Sons et lumières goes on to gloss over the longstanding incompatibility of sound with the gallery /museum setting. Sound in the gallery is noise—not only inappropriate until recent times, but it spread beyond its location, or demands more of a sense of location than a painting, say, requires. Sound-based art in a show can be overbearing, and , if there are several pieces, they risk clashing. Contemplation of any given piece is disrupted, and in turn the sound piece becomes an ambience rather than a discrete work. To get around this, space can be allocated away from other words—a sort of quarantine. Alternatively, the piece can be totally isolated and accessed through headphones.”

I have been fascinated by the comparison of the visual and sonic arts as discrete mediums, especially differences in the process of perception and cognition in each. The boundaries created by a capitalist notion of property afford a sense of ownership over the content members of society choose to consume in both private and public spaces. I first pondered this issue soon after taking my first trip on Chicago’s L where I read the warning of regulations levied against playing music/sound on electronic playback devices at an amplitude audible to other passengers on the train. Interestingly, L stations stand as great confluences for street musicians, relegating public sound production from the train cars’ interiors to the trackside boarding hubs.

Therefore, depending on the medium chosen for entertainment during the mundane commute along the tracks, attempting to avoid boredom in our constantly seeking stimulation mentality (as many are not satisfied with the observational variation already inherent in the unfolding of events in a “routine” day), one’s choice of perception is regulated by the imposed sense of consideration for others. If one chooses to satisfy a penchant for visual stimulation by reading a magazine, peering at the glossy, airbrushed, and plastic-infused faces of celebrities trying to stave off an inevitable death, the entertainment in neatly partitioned (barring a Pee-wee Herman-esque public exposure) within the shared space of the L car by immediate proximity and viewing angles.

Unfortunately, I develop a severe adverse reaction to the gyroscopic motion compensation of my eyes when focused on any object demanding precise and constant visual tracking, especially a page of text near my face. The turbulence of the car causes one’s body to vibrate and undulate in relation to the object one grasps so tightly, already compensating in terms of preventing movement of the object within one’s hands. Despite intense focus, information seeps in from one’s peripheral vision, creating a type of visual noise to the desired “signal.” (Side note: An interesting experiment in visual noise could entail the exploration of microvisuals instead of microsound; creating a visual artwork of a sufficiently miniscule scale and surrounding the artwork with “undesirable” visual stimuli would ensure the consumption of the work within a collage-like context; the border inherent in our visual field, barring a microscope/camera/binoculars/etc., surpasses the physical boundaries of such a work).  The juxtaposition of visual data in constant motion with the fixed appearance of an oscillating object therefore spawns a form a visual dissonance, only not the pleasurable kind for me.

As in nearly every other setting, I therefore choose to occupy this time listening to music in a portable media device. This choice, in the context of the L’s noise abatement regulation, forces one to hermetically seal the sound into one’s cochleae, arguably accelerating sensorineural hearing loss. I will be the first person to oppose someone blasting hip-hop, or any other form of music I find objectionable, in the train car, but I simply use the example as support in the variance between perceptions of different artistic media. It is also interesting that the sustained sound level produced by street performers is accepted on L platforms in an atmosphere of constantly harmful sound pressure levels.

Regarding the quarantine dilemma of sound art in a shared gallery space, I believe this necessary constraint filters the artwork being produced by sound artists for exhibition purposes. This and other constraints, such as the transportability mentioned by Hegarty, create artistic limitations based on the location of consumption. An artwork utilizing the spatiality of a given gallery as integral to its content would not function through headphones, and therefore must necessitate a minimum level of clout from the artist in securing exhibition space: one must be able to earn a partitioned section of the gallery space or a solo exhibition in isolation. Some part of me wonders if certain sound artists do not find this fact to be a problem: if such an artist willingly accepts the aleatoric sound production of an audience within the space, all sounds beyond the artist’s control might be welcomed.

• Hegarty p. 51: “While I do not think genre, style, category can be suspended except very fleetingly, the attempt is still worthwhile, and if the attempt is all we an have, then the attempt is the highest form of freedom to be aspired to, and must be maintained as an aim.”

Though Hegarty made this assertion in regards to free improvisation outside stylistic genres, it is especially relevant to the practice of noise music in general. I mentioned the asymptotic nature of noise in a previous blog: the ideal noise music would have an infinite amount of disruptions to content, followed by disruptions to those disruptions, etc. It also holds valid in terms of noise music’s genre formation, since Duchampian taste development constantly diminishes the “noisiness” of said music. Therefore, the “noisiest” music stands as an ideal mirroring the non-suspension of style/genre, leaving artists with the aspiration of attempts not living up to the aesthetic ideal.

At the same time, from an aesthetic point of view, the inability of attaining “perfection” is discouraging in terms of one’s desires: if the goal cannot be reached, why the continual effort aimed toward the goal? The problem lies in the conceptual ideal and theorists’ dissection of the aesthetic, however, because nearly every pursuit may be vivisected and deconstructed in a similar manner. Maintaining the goal in the first place can be seen as a fault if one knows the goal to be a fallacy before exerting efforts toward that goal. Therefore, one should repudiate these delusions of grandiose aesthetic perfection, acknowledging the absence of the pure ideal in one’s music.

• Hegarty p. 171: “The key in any case, is the installation, of which Labelle has the following to say: ‘the developments of sound installation provide a heightened articulation of sound to perform as an artistic medium, making explicit “sound art” as a unique and identifiable practice.”
  • Hegarty p. 170: “…the sound installations that begin to appear in the late 1960s allow, or suggest ways in which sound was used to construct art, or was made as art rather than as music.”

The distinction of sound art as separate from music has intrigued me since I learned of the artistic medium. I believe the dividing line lies in the perceptual reference frame, making the distinction semantic in my opinion. In response to the second quote, I ask: “What about art music?” I’m sure that Hegarty did not mean to assert that music isn’t already a form of art, but this quote somewhat implies this stance: he should have avoided obfuscation in stating, “…made as art alone rather than as music.” It really depends on the contextual frame of the artwork: an experimental composer might frame the exact sonic morphology of an audio signal used by a sound artist as a composed piece of music rather than a piece of sound art; therefore, the socialized context imposes the distinction in manner of perception.

Labelle contends that the installation is essential to the creation of sound art’s frame of perception and its aesthetic expectations, providing a “heightened articulation of sound to perform as an artistic medium, making explicit ‘sound art’ as a unique and identifiable practice.” I do not believe that an installation articulates sound to perform as an artistic medium any more than a conventional musical performance, namely the concert. While an assuredly different tome of codes governs the digestion of sound art, it is naïve to assert an installation’s relative superiority in framing sonic content as art. If anything, the traditional conception of music carries a far heavier load of historical baggage in connoting a “work of art,” as the creative genius of Common Practice composers has been enshrined and accepted long before Futurist/Dada/Fluxus predecessors to sound art.

It therefore seems that the durability or consistency of an installation creates the “aura” of sound art in contrast to a musical performance. Temporality perhaps stands as the crux in distinguishing sound art from music (the continual exhibition versus the finite concert event), but even these boundaries are completely blurred by the fixed operating hours of exhibition spaces and certain perpetual compositions produced by experimental composers. The absence of “performers” seems crucial to the distinction in this respect: the presence of a human producing the artwork in real-time creates a sense of social obligation for many members of the audience: one must be quiet to respect the performer, one must not cross certain personal boundaries in one’s examination of the artwork, one might feel the stigma of being rude if choosing to leave the space prematurely, etc. The unsuspecting viewer wandering into the gallery space, ignorant of sound art as a genre, would be more likely to classify an artwork involving human components in real-time as a musical performance rather than as a piece of sound art, supporting socialized cultural norms in the audience’s perception. If one accepts the notion of installation being essential to the formation of sound art, what about sound art in the form of a CD? If both an album and assemblage of sound art pieces can reside on a CD, the conceptual frame of interpretation stands as the differentiating factor.

The ambiguous line is also acknowledged by Hegarty when he states, “This line is not even noisy, as so many artists do both, or do the same thing but get defined in two different ways according to the institutional location” (Hegarty p. 177).

Rejected:

• Audio Culture p. 4 – Masami Akita: “There is no difference between noise and music in my work. I have no idea what you term ‘music’ and ‘noise.’ It’s different depending on each person. If noise means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me.”

Although I did not respond to this quote personally, I was able to read Ben’s initial response to Merzbow’s quote featured in one of the few gray pages in Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. As Ben noted, the “different depending on each person” point stands as a valid, yet extremely obvious observation, but I must contend that from my interpretation of Akita, he is a flagrant semantic hypocrite. He first acknowledges that there is “no difference between noise and music in my work,” supported by his relatively interchangeable use of the terms “music” (“If music was sex, Merzbow would be pornography.” AC p. 60) and “noise” (“Sometimes, I would like to kill the much too noisy Japanese by my own Noise.” AC p. 61) in describing his sonic work. Yet quotes such as, “So, for me Noise is the most erotic form of sound,” (AC p. 60) create a distinction between noise and other forms of sound as “most erotic” implies a discrete judgment valuation in relation to the collection of examples categorized as sound.

It is at this point that I must ask a few questions: He may not make the distinction within his work, but does he make a distinction in his taxonomization in general? When he says it is different depending on each person, does the following sentence elucidate his stance? If there is NO difference between the two forms of sound, why does he choose one semantic signifier over the other based on context?

The quote in which he expresses the desire to, “kill the much too noisy Japanese by my own Noise,” is the reason I label him a semantic hypocrite. This desire for genocide stems from Akita’s judgment that the Japanese create too much noise (although this is sort of a self-hating assertion since he is Japanese, part of the Japanese Noise scene of noise producers in general), warranting a forcible cessation in retaliation to an excess of noise: wouldn’t Akita embrace this from his aesthetic perspective? The malicious way in which he exclaims this impulse implies an air of vengeance, revealing his adverse reaction to the noise excess of Japan. When he says “my own Noise” he is simply using the term interchangeably according to the initial quote I cited, but being able to “kill the much too noisy Japanese” with his “Noise” indicates the ability of his sound to severely harm or threaten. Expressing this characteristic of his Noise is a value judgment conveying the abrasive/threatening/harmful/discomforting quality of the sound, aligning with a particular, and common definition of noise in general (notice he did not say, “kill with my music,” and is therefore selective in his employment of terms).

I leave the possibility of misinterpretation open however as Akita seems to be extremely well informed in general. It is quite probable that he chameleons his definition of noise based on those perceiving it rather than as his projected meaning: he says “kill the much too noisy Japanese by my own Noise,” meaning that they perceive the sound as noise, and it would therefore be only harmful to those perceiving it as a threat. In any case, I think he should be less vague in general, as Ben also noted, but that might diminish his edgy façade.

• Hegarty p. 172: “Cage’s 4’33” is a time and space for sounds to occur in, a space, as Labelle rightly notes, for bodies to make noises, for ears to hear beyond the confines of the pianist in front of them…By all accounts on its first performance people got restless, some left, and it was not met with rapturous applause afterward, but there can be no failure, because whatever happens, listening has occurred. The most likely unwitting purpose seems to be to discipline those bodies into correctly listening bodies, static, tensed, if excited in anticipation, about someone or something else intruding. This is no dismantling of music but a heightening of its conventions’ hierarchies.”

First, aligning with Ben, I am quite sick of discussing 4’33” despite its continual relevance and profound influence on the aesthetic perspective of many sound artists/composers covered in this course (Also, I realize that I’m exacerbating this sentiment by blogging about it as well). The end of this quote piqued my curiosity by asking the following question: Is 4’33” more accurately described as a piece of sound art rather than as a piece of music? This goes back to the institutional categorization, venue, firmly bracketed duration, and other factors distinguishing sound art from music, but the piece illustrates just how ambiguous the distinction can be.

However, the concert hall firmly claims the categorical rights over the composition by inducing Hegarty’s idea of the “correct” active listening body, namely the listener obeying all traditional concert conventions, but does not the sound art installation create the same type of conditions within a listener also operating within the normative conventions?  The socialized accepted behavior of each medium differs by relative experiential exposure, since the majority has attended more concerts than sound art installations: the holy aura of the art music concert is far more ingrained within the mind of the average consumer of artistic production. I contend that the difference in form of attention relies on the seating aspect of the concert versus the open gallery space of a sound art installation: the knowledge of social forces at a concert will force most courteous audience members to remain seated for the entire performance (or possibly slipping out at intermission), but if the sound art installation is placed in an open gallery, one reserves the right to continue walking to other exhibits without eye daggers piercing flesh.

The major reason why I selected this quote has to do with Hegarty’s assertion that 4’33” cannot fail because listening always occurs in its performance. I believe the point of the piece lies in the unconscious, aleatoric sounds produced by unwitting members of the audience, framed as a musical composition by the abstraction of conventions and the time bracket. Due to the widespread diffusion of the piece and its aesthetic values, a successful performance could only occur with an audience versed in Western art music concert etiquette ignorant of the composition and Cage’s theoretical stances. If any members of the audience are cognizant of the piece’s point, true non-intention will not occur even though heightened listening is still generated. Since the piece focuses one’s attention on the aleatoric sounds produced unconsciously during the focused listening directed toward the performer, informed audience members (if making even the slightest granule of sound) would disrupt the conceptual content integral to Cage’s aims.

• Hegarty p. 89: “The mainstream rock of the 1970s, whether progressive rock (now seen as regressive) or heavy rock, seemed to be predicated on an unbreakable elitism, based on virtuosity. Essential to crossing the divide between passive worship and making music, or being close to and involved in the music, was the idea that creativity was not determined by skill. Skill would in fact be a hindrance. Many punk bands mad a virtue of an actual lack of skill.”

I have been waiting to rant about this virtue in the lack of skill for a long time. I believe musical groups and solo artists attempting to categorize their actions as “anti-virtuosic” is a completely hypocritical endeavor. It is valid to label such activities, for example No Wave, as redefining the concept of virtuosity because it does not take a lack of skill to create the complex sonic structure or techniques, just a different kind of virtuosity/skill. According to Derek Bailey’s recollection of Joseph Holbrooke, he had to develop and practice the “skill” of avoiding muscle memory patterns ingrained in his tissue, exploring difficult techniques (difficult to him at the time since he had to practice) in an unfamiliar territory to strip away musical conventions. One could most certainly label his actions as virtuosic is the framework of (non)style, and similarly, the raw, “incorrect” singing style of punk singers has been perfected in the eyes of the fans: a typical fan would most likely reject a singing style with an equal “lack of skill,” but in a completely different inept ballpark.

Though it might offend some readers, I have absolutely zero tolerance for embracing the “lack of skill” because I am able to redefine my idea of skill based on the characteristics of data currently being absorbed. If one cannot reevaluate performing techniques, only accepting conservatory practices for example, one needs to attempt these techniques and realize the skill required to achieve the exact sonic results: just because one dismisses a technique as banging on the guitar does not mean that the technique is not actually governed by delicately infinitesimal hand movements practiced for countless hours. I have no interest in digesting music trying to be unskilled because every unskill may also be a skill.

The Present Future?

I believe the future of noise, already occurring in the present day, will be similar to Matmos’s direction, incorporating bodily sounds beyond traditional vocalizations. As technology fuses with organic material (For example: Protein-Coated Disc (PCD) is a theoretical optical disc technology currently being developed by Professor Venkatesan Renugopalakrishnan, formerly of Harvard Medical School and Florida International University. PCD would greatly increase storage over Holographic Versatile Disc optical disc systems. It involves coating a normal DVD with a special light-sensitive protein made from a genetically altered microbe, which would in principle allow storage of up to 50 Terabytes on one disc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-coated_disc) and organic fuses with technology, such as a increasing reliance on mechanical/digital devices, the conception of the body will progress further toward an advanced machine consisting of organic tissue (i.e. an android of sorts). Incorporating the sounds of this machine, as technology and its sound byproducts are often integral to noise production/isolation, will most certainly develop into a stylistic trend beyond the relatively unique example of Matmos. If noise is defined as that which is a threat, and if one defines threat as that which risks harm inflicted on either mental or physical boundaries, the next logical step will be a focus on these walls/boundaries, such as actual cell wall miking. Of course, this is just one of many possibilities.